Fungibility Talk

Also, regarding iterating, clients just need a way to say “iterate since…”. So they can resume iterating at a given point (and validate). As you say, it wouldn’t work very well to always start from the genesis… spentbook client’s must be able to keep local state and resume.


Even so at millions of spends a day, or even hundreds of millions of spends per day. And worse if morning coffee from cafe is transacted with Safe.

At those rates the effort of auditing becomes a huge task.

Then a simple attack of spending tiny amount in ping pong makes it worse
one idiot running 5 clients would get approx 80K transactions a day, then if there are 1000 idiots doing this at any one time its 80 million. When we break 1 billion users then its expected there will be 1000 idiots many times in a year.

1 Like

yes, of course at those scales we will be having the “problems of success” and also will have a lot more people interested in solving the problems.

Anyway, that’s why I think the utxo-like snapshot concept is interesting, as it only requires looking at the very latest set (either spent, or unspent), rather than all the history.

Hopefully in a week or two the team can begin to really focus on auditing and I expect some good solutions will be forthcoming.


Juts to add some thoughts.

While I agree with the technicals that @danda is putting forth in the other thread “fungibility fun” … the banning of “unclean” bitcoin already carries over to the banning of ANY crypto that is strongly fungible - e.g. Monero.

This is driving those unclean and strongly fungible tokens into the black market - and hence driving more people into such markets.

As an AnCap, I am pleased!


SNT will be in the same boat as Monero and similar I think. So if any are thinking that being more fungible is somehow protection from the two-tier marketplace (government sanctioned versus black markets) … I think you are looking at this completely wrong.

What’s happening here is that governments are shooting themselves in the foot. As I mentioned in other posts, eventually all bitcoin wallets will become contaminated with unclean coins … humanity will be driven into black markets.

Safe Network is going to become the haven for black markets globally – which as I understand are already a huge proportion of the global economy - so YAY!

All in all fungible or not, I still come to the conclusion that it’s not going to make any difference. The control freaks of the world will end up locking themselves out of the economy by their own hand.

There is nothing here to fear.

Edit: BTW, I definitely prefer the fungible over the non-fungible … more privacy is better for sure. I just think that human economies can’t really exist/function if private transactions are blocked … it’s why physical cash/coin has always existed in some form or another.


Hopefully you are right in the long term and at a macro scale. However at an individual/human scale, people are already having funds frozen and losing bitcoin over fungibility issues, Also various individuals have been targeted (robbed, kidnapped) for holding a lot of funds, and dealing with other privacy losses due to transparent blockchains. We have also seen the rise of “social credit scores” tied to bank accounts and finance apps. Central bank digital currencies are a specter on the horizon. I think it is wise to be cognizant of these matters and plan accordingly.

Fungible, privacy coins are necessary to demonstrate that there is a real, viable alternative to global financial surveillance in the digital realm, and to give people a choice and a way to “opt out”.


While I think you’re too hung up on simplified “isms”, I do agree with some of your points. The trouble is, the “freaks” won’t give up control peacefully. And there will always be new “freaks” looking to take over. I’m not keen on living in some Wild West, especially since I’m getting older, and a little arthritis in my trigger finger would mean certain death in a muddy street.


?? Our world is dominated by the ‘isms’, the core of which is Statism … and we are discussing technology that is radically going to take power away from them and enable the little guy … so sure, I’m “hung up” on the topic … okay, sue me.

This is the way it has always been. The technology though is allowing choice - so locking them out of control. There’s always been bullies and we are getting better locks to keep them out … this is a good thing, I for one embrace it.

?? This isn’t what AnCap world looks like if that’s what you are asserting. AnCapistan looks more like our world 50 years ago when people had a future as they could save and invest. That’s a world of hope, not the depressing shitshow we have today where inflation and a shrinking middle-class is driving society to a new form of feudalism.

I’m not really asserting anything. We could perhaps continue this discussion in another thread, but without relying on isms and what we dream of them resulting in as facts. Idealized capitalism, communism or anarchism makes no difference. The devil is in the practical details, not in the naming of the ideologies.


I’m not an idealist. I don’t believe in utopia. You brought this up as well - even if it wasn’t an assertion it was certainly an allusion to my “ideology” voluntaryism and the “wild west”, even if you don’t specifically name it, and it wasn’t backed up with any “practical details” either.

You are subtly casting aspersions - don’t think people here are blind to your political art-form.

You’re reading too much between the lines, and I don’t really care what people think of my “political art form”. All I said is that I don’t want to live in the Wild West. I do, however, want everybody to be happy and free. I call this Saschaism. Are you not a Saschaist?


Clucking right, pal :slight_smile:

1 Like